“Fewer but not weaker”: Understanding the intersectional identities among Chinese immigrant young gay men in Toronto.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual minorities of color in North America are frequently defined as a "double minority" group. Intersectionality theory has inspired investigations into how different forms of marginalization intersect to shape the lives of people with multiple minority statuses. In this constructivist grounded theory study, 18 Chinese immigrant gay men between 18 and 28 years of age participated in a semistructured individual interview to narrate their lived experiences in relation to their intersectional identities. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed through a constant comparative method. Several themes emerged from the data. First, study participants perceived their sexual identity as either compatible with or irrelevant to their cultural identity and did not experience negotiating conflicts between their sexual and cultural identities. Second, the intersectionality was context-specific. Study participants experienced a certain form of marginalization in the contexts of disclosing their gay identity and finding a dating partner within a gay community. Third, participants considered the label double minority oversimplified and derogatory. They emphasized that their daily lives were in a complex power structure that was constituted by more than two identity categories. The marginalization based on their ethnic and sexual identities weighed differently and should not be understood as simple math. Last, despite carrying the status of minority, these gay men indicated that their intersectional identities served as a source of social support. This study contributes to the knowledge base around intersectionality by uncovering its qualitative nuance and bringing to light its contextual specificity. Practice, policy, and research implications are provided. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".